Mr. Anil Dev Singh, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 27/05/1994. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-Delhi Development Authority, the appellant before us, issued an advertisement on February 8,1976 with a view to providing an opportunity to industrialiststo shift their industries functioning in the non-conforming areas or the areas whichwere under acquisition for various public purposes to conforming areas. Theadvertisement declared that it was the last opportunity for the industrialists toapply for land in the conforming areas which had been developed by the Delhidevelopmnent Authority in different localities of Delhi according to the provisionsof the Master Plan. The applicants were advised to apply in the prescribed form. Pursuant to the advertisement, about 15,000 applicants applied for the plots. As thenumber of applications were large, it was decided by the appellant that anapplicant should deposit 30% of the " premium amount" of the land as a conditionprecedent for the Authority to consider his application. By this process theappellant was able to weed out sizable number of applicants. Out of 15,000applicants only 416 applicants deposited the requisite amount. Some applicantsafter depositing the amount withdrew the same. Ultimately 299 applicants wereleft in the field, out of which 184 applicants were allotted plots as they were foundto be possessed of valid municipal licences from the M. C. D. on the date of theapplication and were also found to have industries in non-conforming areas. Inrespect of the remaining 115 applicants, the matter was referred to a Committee forascertaining their eligibility for allotment of the industrial plots. The committeewent into the matter and found that out of these 115 applicants 60 were eligible forallotment of alternative plots. Case of 55 applicants was thus rejected on theground, inter-alia,that they did not have the municipal licences on the date of theirmaking the application for allotment of plots. ( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up in the writpetitions came to the conclusion that the industrial plots were proposed to beallotted as per the scheme announced in the year 1976 and the purpose of thescheme was to provide alternative plots to the industrialists who could notcontinue to function in non-conforming areas. ( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge before whom the matter came up in the writpetitions came to the conclusion that the industrial plots were proposed to beallotted as per the scheme announced in the year 1976 and the purpose of thescheme was to provide alternative plots to the industrialists who could notcontinue to function in non-conforming areas. According to him the scheme didnot impose any condition on the applicants requiring them to be possessed ofmunicipal licences for their undertakings on the date of the making the applicationsto the appellant. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that para 8 of theapplication form, prescribed for making an application for allotment of land,required the applicant to be possessed of a municipal licence. He further submittedthat Rule 6 (v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazulland) Rules, 1981 (for short the Rules ) also required the applicants to be possessedof municipal licence. ( 5 ) WE have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant but we find that there is no such requirement either in the prescribed form norin the rule 6 (v) of the Rules. Para 8 of the prescribed form reads as follows:- " Number and date of municipal licence held, if any, and date upto which itis valid. "the words "if any" are, in our view, significant. According to the above para anapplicant was required to give details of the municipal licence, if he was possessedof the same. As is apparent it does not lay down that the appellant should hold amunicipal licence for the industrial unit on the date of making the application forallotment of a plot in a conforming area. It also does not say that an applicant notholding the municipal licence need not apply. There was no mandatory requirement to produce a municipal licence by the applicant either at the time of makingthe application or before his application was to be considered or granted. Itappears to us that the scheme was applicable to an applicant who was having anindustry in a non-conforming area irrespective of the fact whether or not he washaving a municipal licence in respect of his industry as otherwise there was no pointin making him apply for the plot when none was to be allotted to him. Itappears to us that the scheme was applicable to an applicant who was having anindustry in a non-conforming area irrespective of the fact whether or not he washaving a municipal licence in respect of his industry as otherwise there was no pointin making him apply for the plot when none was to be allotted to him. Evenassuming that possession of a municipal licence was necessary,it is not disputed bythe learned Counsel for the appellant that now all the writ petitioners whose writpetitions have been allowed by the learned Single Judge had applied for theindustrial licences from the municipality and the same were granted to them withretrospective effect covering the dates when applications were made by them forallotment of plots. Therefore in either view, this contention based on possession ofmunicipal licence is devoid of any merit. ( 6 ) NOW coming to the Rule 6 (v) of the Rules, we are of the opinion that it doesnot postulate any condition that Nazul land is to be allotted at pre-determined ratesonly to persons having municipal licences in respect of their industrial undertakings. Rule 6 (v) in so for it is relevant for the purposes of this appeal, is reproducedhere and reads as under:- "subject to the other provisions of these rules the Authority shall allot Nazulland at the predetermined rates in the following cases namely. . . . . . . . . to industrialists or owners and occupiers of ware houses who are required to shifttheir industries and ware houses from non-conforming areas to conformingarea under the Master Plan, or whose land is acquired or is proposed to beacquired under the Act. . . . . . . . . "according to the above Rule, land. could be allotted to industrialists or owners ofunits and occupiers of warehouses who are required to shift from non-conformingareas to conforming areas under the Master Plan or whose land is acquired or isproposed to be acquired. It seems to us that the Rule requires industries operatingin non-conforming areas to be shifted to conforming areas in accordance with themaster Plan. Under Master Plan land use of a particular area is specified. The landcannot be used for a purpose other than the one sanctioned by the Master Plan. Therefore, any industry operating in a non-conforming area would be required tobe shifted to a conforming area. Under Master Plan land use of a particular area is specified. The landcannot be used for a purpose other than the one sanctioned by the Master Plan. Therefore, any industry operating in a non-conforming area would be required tobe shifted to a conforming area. In any event, as already pointed out, the writpetitioners whose writ petitions have been accepted by the learned Single Judgewere granted municipal licences from retrospective dates, covering the dates onwhich applications were made for allotment of land. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order of thelearned Single Judge does not require any interference in regard to the writpetitions which have been allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.